Does network neutrality mean an end to BitTorrent throttling?

As the BitTorrent file transfer protocol gains both popularity and legal uses …

Now that BitTorrent is all grown up and has been given the keys to its parents' car, ISPs are faced with the difficult decision about how to handle the protocol. Companies from around the world have been throttling the service, which can sometimes eat up three-quarters of a provider's total bandwidth. Throttling could be seen as a legitimate response to this bandwidth crunch if all BitTorrent content were illegal, but of course, it's not. So what's an ISP to do—especially if they have agreed to run a neutral network?

BitTorrent has always had its legal uses—one popular application is distributing Linux ISOs—but legal uses of the software have become increasingly common over the last year. BitTorrent (the company) has announced its own plans to go legit, offering DRMed Hollywood movies from major studios. The company has already raised almost $9 million in venture capital and has signed deals with several of the major studios. Its service should launch sometime in February.

Or consider Zudeo, the BitTorrent-based service from Azureus, which is trying to do much the same thing, but in high-definition. It is also poised to send massive amounts of traffic through the 'Net, but ISPs won't be able to tell simply by looking at a packet whether it's legitimate or not.

While this litany of legal services can lead to cries for ISPs to stop shaping BitTorrent traffic, the reality remains that a large percentage of this traffic is still illicit file-swapping. And whether it's legal or not, no ISP is thrilled to have 80 percent of their network capacity given over to serving BitTorrent downloads.

What's an ISP to do? That question is made even more difficult for companies that have agreed to abide by network neutrality provisions. So far, the only US company to do so in a binding way has been AT&T, which agreed to provide a neutral network for several years as part of its merger agreement with BellSouth.

Such agreements could prevent companies from shaping BitTorrent traffic on their networks, which would be great for World of Warcraft players, Linux users, and fans of Lost, but could have a negative effect on the speeds of those just out to surf the web for business or pleasure.

ISPs that have made no such agreements may not need to worry about BitTorrent taking over their networks, but they do need to wrestle with the issue of how to handle it now that so many legal uses of the protocol are available. Do they want to irritate their BitTorrent-using contingent, or let BitTorrent flow unhindered at the risk degrading the experience of those who don't download torrents?